Jared v. Hovind

Page goneThis site is full of MP3s of this guy, Jared Hoag, calling into Kent Hovinds radio show and basically taking Dr. Dino to task. He's pretty good, and pretty knowledgable, it's pretty entertaining hearing Hovind get shot down time after time, only to have him deny that he has been disproven.Anyway, I thought you all would enjoy this.

this sounds interesting. i'll give 'em a listen.

At the 80% point hoag is not managing to handle Hovind well at all.Dropped the ball on bird transitionals then let Hovind get away with you can't say "they had kids" to drop the whales discussion.Then got caught up in science is religion and lost his way there too.Not good so far.

yeah, it's give and take, really.hovind is convining. that's why a lot of people believe him.

---

אָרַח

I'm at the half way point
Hovind is getting away with fossils date rocks and rocks date fossils, he seemed to deflect everything on Shermer.I'm still listening.Hovind seems to have brought up Mt, Chief and Matterhorn as disproof of geologic column.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-04-2005 07:41 PM

Hoag gets better up past the 20 mark He wises up alot. It's pretty crazy how he keeps calling in. Up at the 40's or so, Hovind has his ass handed to him a few times.

I love the first one, when jared flips out on him, saying don't interrupt me. That was sooo funny. Hovind sounds exactly like my basketball coach.

---

empathy is non-existant as we reign terror on others

frustrated that hoag couldn't answer this ridiculous claim -- maybe answers it later. regarding birds, archaeopteryx, and bird v. lizard hips. does hoag later answer this one?i addressed it over here Message 10. so if anyone feels like debating it, do it over there.

---

אָרַח

here's a sub-thread for the outrageous claims on BOTH sides, reference links only.

• hoag made some comment about a bird with lizard-arms. what is he talking about? clawed wings? can someone provide a reference?
• hovind made a claim about living trilobites. is he talking about sow bugs? if so, does he realize that trilobites are entirely different organisms, and butting one forth as the other is entirely dishonest? i mean -- look at them. they're not quite the same. does hoag ever catch him on this?

---

אָרַח

Hovind is talking about sow bugs. Hes been debunked on this a million times! But he keeps bringing it up.Hoag is correct. In south america there is a very primative bird that has many lizard-like features. It has scaly claws on it's wings and teeth in its mouth.It's called the Hoatzin: Hoatzin - Wikipedia

ah ha. i had pictured something with a lot less of a wing. but it's interesting to know -- i can see why it would be compared to old archae.

---

אָרַח

Hey guys.I found this forum while I was ego-surfing. I just put my 48 debates with Kent Hovind back online via a friend's webspace. (Same URL as before.)First of all, it pleases me that people have noticed what I'm doing with Kent Hovind. I haven't called into his show in about half a year, but I'm going to begin again soon. Lots of crazy stuff has been going on.When I began calling into Hovind's show, I was a weak atheist/agnostic (and still am), but I had only moderate knowledge of evolution. My understanding evolved over the course of my calls with him, as I refined my knowledge base and spent many, many hours thinking and talking with various people. I appreciate constructive criticism, with the caveat that you really have to listen to the entire sequence of debates before it's fair to judge how competent I am in this area. (I'm speaking mostly to NosyNed on this.)My experience with evolutionary theory has inspired me in many, many ways. I'm considering going back to college to get an undergrad degree in biology so that I can work on a PhD in some biological field. Perhaps a blend of evolution and mathematics; I predict this is an emerging field of serious import.My main purpose in coming here is to get feedback from people who have listened to my later debates. Any errors that I have not taken care of need to be corrected, and I would appreciate any help in that effort. When I next confront Mr. Hovind, I am going to be representative not only of a newer version of me, but hopefully of other people who wish to use me as a weapon against him. I believe that he is doing serious damage in maintaining the status quo of YEC belief in the USA, and I intend to spend as much time as I can reasonbly spare in defeating him.JPS
I did learn about the distinction between Ornithiscia and Saurischia, and directly confronted Hovind about his deceit on that topic.

hey jared. welcome to evc -- i think you'll be right at home here. that's good. because it's a really good sounding, but totally spurious and ridiculous claim. hovind seems to prey on people who just don't know any better by making arguments that SOUND right, but aren't.i'm curious to hear how that particular conversation went...

---

Hello there.I suppose one way to challenge Hovind might be to ask him to provide a positive falsifiable hypothesis that is INDEPENDENT of the TOE. Do this every time he uses a "flaw" in the TOE as "evidence" to support YEC by default. Get him to state exactly HOW he thinks life developed.You might also want do some research on the predictive power of the TOE and ask Hovind for similar predictions from YEC. This is a thorny issue for YEC since it would amount to an attempt to predict the will of God!These broader questions might help you avoid getting bogged down in the details of the TOE. Once you are bogged down he'll just argue any old crap happily in the knowledge that most scientifically uneducated people will have no ability to draw a distinction between either of you.I'm no scientist (games programmer) but that's my two cents. Many of the EvC resident scientists will no doubt have some stronger suggestions!This message has been edited by rjb, 04-21-2006 04:21 AM

Sheesh, is it possible the guy (Hovind) is at least sincere, believes what he teaches, whether you agree with him or not? This habit of accusing him and other creos of deceit just sounds like a cheap shot.